Re: RE: Re: RE: More on A16 fire hazard
At 11:34 AM 04/16/2000 -0400, you wrote: "Max B. Sawicky" wrote: . . . Protesters' Headquarters Raided, Shut Down Incredible. What's incredible about it? It seems quite ordinary to me -- but I suppose it depends on one's assumptions about capitalist democracy. Carrol I think that it's important to remember -- and emphasize -- the contradiction between the "free speech" promises of the establishmentarian spokespeople and how the system works in practice. [*] The cynical "that's capitalism once again" response will never attract new people to the Left. On top of that, the "that's capitalism" response encourages maximalism (nothing good is possible under capitalism) and even maximally giving up. [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a long distance with the contrast between "what's good according to capitalist standards" (trading at value, equal exchange) and how the system works in practice (exploitation in production). In fact, Cornel West in his book (Ph.D. dissertation) on Marxism and Morality, argues that this "theory vs. practice" emphasis is Marx's main ethical approach in his later works. Of course, that's Chomsky's emphasis, too. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: More on A16 fire hazard
O.K. This seems right. My question: Does the novelty (or at leas relative novelty) of the reaction reflect someone's deliberate estimation of the threat, or merely a more-or- less run of the mill police over-reaction? . . . [mbs] It's an over-reaction if you are interested in upholding the law, including everyone's basic rights. It's not if you have no scruples about doing whatever you can get away with to disrupt legal and/or non-violent dissent. And if the former, what precisely is the threat that someone feels? I use the vague someone because I don't have the remotest idea how high up the decision was. [mbs] I would guess the DC fuzz doesn't want to look hapless and out of control like the Seattle cops. As it happens, the local news is showing cops making gratuitous and random assaults on kids 1/3rd their size right now in front of the WB. In any case, a lot of people will be returning home with a rather intensified awareness of how swift and severe reactions by the state can be. Carrol Yup. No question about it. This is how revolutionaries are made. Or at least one way. mbs
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: More on A16 fire hazard
- Original Message - From: "Jim Devine" [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a long distance with the contrast between "what's good according to capitalist standards" (trading at value, equal exchange) and how the system works in practice (exploitation in production). Surely Marx's entire point in Capital is to show that "how the system works in practice" is precisely by _trading at value_. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: More on A16 fire hazard (fwd)
there is no "contrast" between the real (exploitation) and the moral (equal exchange) in Capital. It is capitalism, not Marx, that creates the contrast, to make us believe free market distributes fairly. Marx objectively reads capitalism as the way it is.. Mine [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a long distance with the contrast between "what's good according to capitalist standards" (trading at value, equal exchange) and how the system works in practice (exploitation in production). Surely Marx's entire point in Capital is to show that "how the system works in practice" is precisely by _trading at value_. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: More on A16 fire hazard
"At 07:13 PM 04/16/2000 +0100, you wrote: - Original Message - From: "Jim Devine" [*] In CAPITAL, Marx goes a long distance with the contrast between "what's good according to capitalist standards" (trading at value, equal exchange) and how the system works in practice (exploitation in production). Surely Marx's entire point in Capital is to show that "how the system works in practice" is precisely by _trading at value_. what I was saying was that in volume I of CAPITAL, Marx shows "how the system works" precisely _when_ trading at value -- but that nonetheless there is exploitation of labor by capital. (It's a little like John Roemer's business of showing the existence of "exploitation" in a perfectly competitive system. But Marx's theory is much more profound.) In volume III, as he turns to the issue of how competition works and how the participants perceive the system and act on those perceptions, he drops the assumption that commodities trade at value (so that there is unequal exchange, the "transformation problem," and all that). So capitalism does not trade at value in practice (in Marx's view, at least). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: More on A16 fire hazard
- Original Message - From: "Jim Devine" In volume III, as he turns to the issue of how competition works and how the participants perceive the system and act on those perceptions, he drops the assumption that commodities trade at value (so that there is unequal exchange, the "transformation problem," and all that). So capitalism does not trade at value in practice (in Marx's view, at least). This seems misleading. In Cap III Marx does not 'drop the assumption that commodities trade at value'. It is NOT an assumption in the first place, if by this you mean a hypothetical speculation used to investigate a matter. What Marx tries to do in Cap III, and succeeds, is to show how real phenomena such as unequal exchange and value-price transformation can coexist with and even be entailed by, the fundamental fact of equal commodity exchange, including of course the exchange of labour with capital. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
